“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

In today’s Sun: the alternative narrative

It’s not often that a respected disciple of Reaganomics poops all over the Right, and calls on the Left to get its act together. But, last week, it happened.

Some background first.

The great global recession of 2008 — and the cataclysm of despair that it unleashed — has receded, somewhat.

But its effects are still felt all over and nowhere as much as among what we once nostalgically called “the middle class.”

Foreclosures, layoffs and broken dreams are everywhere to be seen.

Where, in the midst of all of this, have been we on the Left?

Hard to say.

Progressives have been virtually invisible, at the very time when the old dogmas and old fixes of the Right are, to many, a cruel joke.

In the midst of this, a big surprise. A neo-con icon steps up to excoriate his fellow conservatives.

84 Responses to “In today’s Sun: the alternative narrative”

  1. scot says:

    It’s called propaganda, financed by right wing money and spouted by paid for media. Russians thought their society was the cat’s ass for decades before waking up. The social programs put in pace by the left were humming along quite nicely till the right figured out how to influence the ill informed. The fact that they have been cutting taxes (revenue) for years doesn’t help. Personally, I still like all the old ideas with miner rejigging.

  2. Allisntwell says:

    Why has the left not benefitted from this? Simple really.The left does nothing to change this when they are in power. What did the Liberals under JC do to change this when they had consecutive majority govts? Nothing. Voters for the most realize this ,so when the left is not in power,the suggestion by them that wealth concentration was created or is being sustained by only the right, falls on deaf ears.

  3. Philippe says:

    The left is fractured here in Canada, but they’re in a healthy place down south. Obama’s inequality message is resonating. He’s polling ahead of any Republican nominee and is looking good for re-election. It’s not all doom & gloom.

    • scot says:

      Pretty much everything happens 5 years earlier in the States, good and bad. It’s like watching our future unfold.

    • Michael says:

      People keep saying the left is fractured, but I am not so sure that is the case. Yes we have two progressive parties, but that is not new phenomenon.

      When the Liberals were winning majorities there were two progressive parties then as well. Why wasn’t the left fractured then? What has changed?

      • Chris says:

        The left was fractured, but the right was even more fractured.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Using the term ‘Fractured’ assumes that the dived between the centre left and far left is broken and can be healed. That is not the case.

        The centre-left will never go for a return to nationalization of industries, greater union power, draconinan environmental legislation and international isolationism. Were the NDP and LPC to merge the far left-es would be left out in the cold as is the case currently with those on the far right vis-a-vis the CPC. And, as is the case with those in the far right currently having little choice but to vote with the CPC or not vote at all, under such a union the far-left would have to do the same under a union of the LPC and NDP.

        The problem is that the NDP is controlled by the far-left and thus will not allow a union with the LPC and the LPC wont unite with the NDP if it means ceding a large amount of power to the far-left NDP establishment. And even with a union the new party would be significantly further left than the current LPC and thus even further from the political centre – a centre that has steadily been moving right for decades.

        • Philippe says:

          I recall the Reform/Canadian Alliance party essentially “taking over” the former progressive conservative party. The ideological differences between both at the time were far greater than those of the modern day Liberal and New Democrats.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            and many on the far right were left essentially without a party and a few red tories moved to the LPC. Ideologically the two parties were far closer than the LPC – ndp. Unions control 33% of the NDP leadership vote, for example. And theNDP wants to exit NATO and essentially disarm. And on and on.

        • kenzo's says:

          I love how you state things so definitively and absolutely. And such sweeping gusto. Contrary to what you believe, this tendency does not prove any of your points and merely paints you a frightened and insecure individual.

  4. Hannah says:

    We on the left are too busy throwing each other under the bus. We need to accept there may be policies and laws we do not favour, and we need to realize it truly is not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath water. Look what happened in Ontario when Bob Rae implemented Rae Days. If the left had of just seen it for what this was, a necessary thing to do thus avoiding more draconian measures, we would likely not have had Mike Harris. The one thing the left is not, is cohesive. We need to realize the Conservatives are destroying Canada, and get our collectives egos in check so together, we can fight the CPC menace. Instead we take pot shots at each other, throw each other under the bus and give a ton of fuel to our natural enemies. Not exactly the smartest thing to do when both the NDP and the Liberals are down. If we truly care about Canada, we will work together to stop the destruction of our country.

  5. Tim Sullivan says:

    Is Kory Teneycke saying it hard to set priorities, or just hard to have ideas, but once we have ideas, priorities come easy?

  6. Gord Tulk says:

    What Fukuyama and the teaparty and many, many on the right are opposed to is cronyism. And cronyism exists between big unions, big business and big labour. Not all of each of those three but certainly not a small number. Thus we have the SEIU, the uaw, GE, warren buffet, the Obama administration as examples trying it rig the rules of the game by ensuring legislation and other policies are in place that prevent competition.

    The answer to the problem – the point that many on the left miss is less – not more regulation. One might think that after the enormous success that deregulation brought to the telecom and airline sectors that they would have seen the boom in employment, technological progress and collapse in prices – all wins for workers and consumers – that they would be crowing about it from the hilltops but it seems they remain deafened and blinded by their socialist indoctrination to the use of market tactics to solve the problem.

    Deregulation of the labour market will end big Labours stranglehold in Non-RTW states and provinces where they are suffocating the companies and governments they have in their grasp

    Derugulation of environmental and commerce rules (guess who drew them up for the govt to implement) would remove the commercial trade barriers they create for the companies who dominate the sectors – (GE is the leading expert)

    Deregulation of the US political system has already made a big step forward with the striking down of campaign finance laws that were huge barriers to entry for non-establishment candidates. The rule changes are making a wonderful mess of the GOP race and be getting a long overdue review of the entire primary system. And it erases obamas and the lefts sugar daddy advantage with the unions.

    Whether Fukuyama has come to the above realization yet, I do not know, but perhaps he will become a neo-neo con and rejoin the ranks of conservatives who have long been aware of the above.

    Meanwhile progress continues on all of those fronts – Indiana has now gone RTW with other rust belt states likely to follow. Even the Obama administration is weakening on regulation of the oil and gas sector as $5 pump gas means the termination of their regime in november and the GOP policy book is chockablock with plans to deregulate – chief among them the repeal of Obamacare and it’s plans to monopsonize under govt control one sixth of the american economy. The reining in of big government cronyism has already begun as noted above and the pending rules changes to insider trading (elected officials currently have special exemptions) will help significantly as well.

    The left – liberals – need to return to their roots of being in favour of liberty and join ranks with conservatives who largely never let go of that cause. And then, perhaps they will see a renewal of ideas.

    • william smith says:

      Having read your posts for years can you explain something that you never have explained just where do the disadvantaged come into your society? And if they do, I can understand if they don’t (lazy bastards eh?). How do you propose to maintain a “living wage” in the face of deindustrialisation due to globalisation? How do you prevent older adults slipping into greater poverty without a safetey net of OAS?

      Just wondering

      • Gord Tulk says:

        I did address this recently here at Warren’s protoblog.

        To borrow Dennis millers adage “protect the helpless – forget the clueless”.

        Govt should sponsor or incentiveize support programs for those who lack the means to prosper and generate sufficient wealth to live out of poverty (poverty being a very variable thing depending on where in this world you live. This line cannot be above that which able-bodied individuals earn a wage.)

        OAS is too inflexible IMO. It should be replaced with a more integrated system where CPP and sponsored pooled pensions can work more harmoniously and be used for things like healthcare etc.

        That said, make no mistake – globalization and free trade and stronger market based policies are the most powerful tools in destroying poverty ever devised. Given time they will dramatically reduce the need and thus size of the safety net.

        • Michael Radan says:

          “Govt should sponsor or incentiveize support programs for those who lack the means to prosper and generate sufficient wealth to live out of poverty (poverty being a very variable thing depending on where in this world you live. This line cannot be above that which able-bodied individuals earn a wage.)”

          Can you cite a government program that pays more than that which an able-bodied individual earns as a wage? I would love to know which one it is, because it certainly isn’t the $600 or so dollars a month Ontario Works pays.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            It is never one program but rather an amalgam. Here in Canada the most stark example that i witnessed first hand was the use of Make work welfare programs in NL to get worlers qualified for EI. In some cases they worked as little as 3 weeks to get a years worth of EI. The corrosive effect on the work ethic of those not getting this benefit is severe and long-lasting – more than few observers have called it a culture of dependency and defeatism.

            One that i recently became aware happens in the US state of Mississippi: Check out the chart in thus link:


            It’s important to understand that these supports have to be significantly below the ‘able-bodied wage’. A program net that delivers 80 to 90% of that wage is going to provide a massive disincentive to those who earn the able-bodied wage to stop earning and enrol in the programs. That spreads the benefit among more people causing either the cost to rise or the benefit to be reduced – hurting those who are not able to work.

            A classic example of this is the GIS. It does not require a net worth test for applicants and thus we have, for example, retired farmers who hold literally a million or more in land debt free, but because of clever cash-based accounting over the years have managed to show little or no T4 income making them eligible for the GIS. Thus the GIS is paying money to those who do not need it.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        And as for “deindustrialisation due to globalisation?”:

        RTW states like NC, TX and TN have booming industrial cores. Foreign companies are flocking to them to take advantage of their world leading infrastructure and productive workforces. The areas that are losing industrial capacity are the ones that are resisting globalization and market and labour liberalization.

        • Michael Radan says:

          What are the wages and working conditions in these right to work states?

          Are workers better off in the RTW states? Or are corporate profits booming, and the workers with no job security and lax health & safety regulations have to hope that those profits trickle down to them some day?

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Workers are employed in RTW states. The union cartels in non-rtw states are destroying productivity and keeping wage levels above a competitive level.

            Workers in non-rtw states are moving to RTW states to find work.

            Corporate profits – profits that are taxed BTW – are high recently in part due to the fact that the lack of opportunity has compelled responsible companies to retain earnings rather than deploy them in new ventures or expansion. When the economy turns around either due to the defeat of obama and recission of many of his policies or a collapse in the price of oil (or both) look for corporate profits to actually drop as these after-tax cash holdings are spent and more debt is taken to invest in expansion.

            A worker in a non-rtw state has a lot more long-term job opportunity than one in a non-rtw state has (hence the migration to non-rtw states.

        • scot says:

          Full of crap as usual Gord. Right to work (for less) States have not seen any booms. Quite the opposite in fact.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Read and learn:


            Or perhaps learn to read first.

          • scot says:

            Right wing dribble. You ive in an echo chamber Gord. You are simply off the right wing scale at this point. It’s almost tragic. Poor Southern States pay hundreds of millions to attract big employers and tax breaks up the ying yang. Right to work laws are a minor incentive. Low paying crap jobs. People actually leave these States because of it.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Yeah – all those thiusands of businesses were paid to locate there

            Read the link:

            Here’s a snip

            “ Gross State Product has grown more rapidly by 0.5 percent per year in RTW states between 1977 to 1999.
             Overall employment, particularly manufacturing employment, grew more rapidly between 1970 and 2000 in RTW states. Overall employment increased by 0.9 percent more rapidly per year in RTW states. Manufacturing employment increased more by 1.7 percent per year in RTW states.
             The proportion of families who are living in poverty in RTW states fell from 18.3 percent to 11.6 percent between 1969-2000.
             The proportion of families who are living in poverty rose in most Non-RTW states. (Michigan increased by 0.6 percent).”

            Insulting people does not replace intelligent rebuttal.

          • scot says:

            Most right to work (for less) States were dirt poor with little manufacturing. No place to go but up (a little). Employment still lower overall than non rtw States. Employment went down in non rtw States due to manufacturing going offshore. It is starting to come back now. Some rtw States have the highest unempoyment rates in the country. You cons are just a bunch of misleading cherry pickers.

        • Gary says:

          Is China a RTW state?

          • Gord Tulk says:

            short answer: Yes.

            There are no closed-shop third party union laws.

          • Gary says:

            Foreign companies are flocking to them to take advantage of their world leading infrastructure and productive workforces.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            For lower-skilled jobs and base manufacturing, yes. And that is how it should be. And their income scales are creeping upwards and thus some of that world is moving to other, cheaper juristictions like bangledesh and Africa (where Chinese businesses are active in building branch plants).

            But for higher skilled stuff the US and to a lesser extent western Europe is still top of the pile. And in biotech and software china is largely uncompetitive.

    • Michael Radan says:

      Repeat something enough and it will be true? Deregulation has done none of the things you claim. It has worked about as well as trickle down economics.

      Can you cite an example where deregulation of the labour market has helped anyone but large corporations? Sure workers might have a job, but certainly not one that pays as well or under the conditions of one under a well regulated labour market.

      “Derugulation (sic) of environmental and commerce rules (guess who drew them up for the govt to implement) would remove the commercial trade barriers they create for the companies who dominate the sectors – (GE is the leading expert)”. But more importantly, what would environmental deregulation do for the rest of us that are not GE? We only need look to China to see what deregulation of environmental regulations would be do. China, the country that had to shut down it’s factories in advance of the 2008 Olympics so that the athletes and tourists could breathe the air in Beijing.

      What disenfranchised candidate has come forward in the US? Quite the contrary, the lifting of spending limits has led to the formation of Super PACS, and the concentration of money and influence to established mainstream candidates. Ones that end up beholden to powerful special more often than not corporate interests. What would help non-established candidates would be concrete spending limits on campaigns. Then those with the best ideas would win, not those with the most money. Contrary to what the USSC thinks, money does not equal free speech.

      “And it erases obamas and the lefts sugar daddy advantage with the unions.” You have got to be kidding. You conveniently forget to mention the Republican Party’s corporate sugar daddy. ;) I would be willing to wager that corporate donations to the GOP outstrip union donations to Obama.

      Since 1968 the US Republican Party has had a pretty good run. Up until the Obama administration their rule has only been interrupted by Carter and Clinton, so they have had a chance to implement their deregulation, trickle down theories.

      It is the policies of the right – conservatives – that have gotten us to where we are today. For the true pursuit of life, liberty and happiness you should join ranks with liberals who have never let go of the cause. ;)

      • Gord Tulk says:

        “Sure workers might have a job, but certainly not one that pays as well or under the conditions of one under a well regulated labour market. ”

        Tell that to those in the unemployment lines in Non-RTW states. And in regard to safety and working conditions – come take a look at how the work conditions are for the non-union oilfield.

        GE et al have helped to create a byzantine regulatory process in many of the sectors within which it operates (it has abandoned many of those areas where it hasn’t been able to do that) that is a severe barrier to entry. And China is not the example to which we need nor want to aspire.

        Super PACS are awesome. They make it possible for candidates to not have to kiss the ring of the party establishment. Gingrich and Santorum would have given up long ago were it not for this new fund-raising climate. This is a very new realization for many – it really wasn’t that well appreciated befrore the FL primary. Had it been better understood more and more promising candiddtes would have entered the race – Daniels would have jumped in, pawlenty wouldn’t have quit. One of the Key takeaways i that New hampshire is no longer make or break – feeding the fundraising maw isn’t necessary anymore.

        Large Corporate donations from Wall street mostly went to Obama in the last election (via individual accounts). Most are going with the GOP this year as they see the disaster that Obama is – that cronyism has its limits. And Obama swamped McCain because non-wall street corps were limited as to how they could donate. That’s not the case this year and many are coming off the sidelines to nullify the power of the unions

        And It was Carter who initiated the deregulation of the airlines and the telecoms (and trucking and Natural Gas if i recall correctly). The more mainstream dem party of the time had realized – as it did in the forties with aftermath of the new deal – that its progressiveism had overr-reached and it began the repeal and reduction of regulation in many sectors with spectacularly successful results.

        And yes it is arguable that the policies of the right – more correctly the policies based on market theory – that have led to the greatest boom in global prosperity ever. It is staggering to look back just forty years and compare what much of the world was living like and compare it to now – a vastly wealthier and thus freer place. Good of you to notice… progress is a wonderful thing – it is what differentiates from all other species.

    • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

      Beautiful story………..

      One afternoon Mr. Tulk was riding in his
      limousine when he saw two men along the road-side eating grass.

      Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and
      got out to investigate.

      He asked one man, “Why are you eating grass?”

      We don’t have any money for food,” the poor
      man replied. “We have to eat grass.”

      “Well, then, you can come with me to my
      house and I’ll feed you,” Mr. Tulk said.

      “But sir, I have a wife and two children
      with me. They are over there, under that tree.”

      “Bring them along,” Mr. Tulk replied.

      Turning to the other poor man he stated,
      “You may come with us, also.”

      The second man, in a pitiful voice, then
      said, “But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!”

      “Bring them all as well,” Mr. Tulk answered.

      They all entered the car, which was no easy
      task, even for a car as large as the limousine was.

      Once under way, one of the poor fellows
      turned to Mr. Tulk and said, “Sir, you are too kind.”

      “Thank you for taking all of us with you.

      Mr. Tulk replied, “Glad to do it. You’ll really love my place.”

      “The grass is almost a foot high.”

  7. kenzo's says:

    I really think there is a work ethic and discipline issue above all is else here. I really think the left/ progressive/ liberal side, of which I am part, got lazy/ undisciplined/ and dare I say it, entitled. It weakened us badly when it came to both policy/issue definition and unity/ cohesion and, as has been pointed out a trillion times over by most of us, we lost our narrative.

  8. Curt says:

    I hear all this talk about progressives but not once have i ever heard the term defined. I think the word progress means for change. However if progressives can’t define what they are now how can they change into something tomorrow?

    • Gord Tulk says:

      Go on wiki and see how muddled “progressivism” has become. Many socialists and liberals have embraced the term as their causes have become unpopular.

    • Just Call me Rick says:

      If I may, Progressive is just that-progress, the best times lie ahead, toward the future, even if it takes decades to get there. Conservatism-the opposite of progressive- belives the best was at some indetermined period in the past. Progressivism lies at the heart of the common good.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        The problem is that “Progress” is sometimes exactly the opposite.

        Unions were given the ability to close shops in the belief that this would protect wage levels. The result has been to destroy jobs, productivity and growth. So, the solution for this failing from many progressives is even more workplace regulation. Conservatives want to remove the bad idea that started the problem and thus allow the economy to resume and accelerate its growth which in the long-run means higher wages more jobs.

        • Lawrence Stuart says:

          It’s a nice story, Gord, but it ain’t true.

          I suppose everything, in the long enough run, returns to equilibrium. But capitalism has cyclical crashes. It is part of the structural reality of the bloody system. And if you really believe that simply letting go of the steering wheel is the right choice, that ‘creative destruction’ is always going to be just a minor wobble in an otherwise smoothly humming engine of progress, I would ask you to explain what you think the collapse of Wiemar Germany, the Great Depression, and WW II were all about.

          And as far as deregulation and union bashing goes: that whole line of crap is starting to wear pretty thin with the great unwashed. They look at China and wonder if that’s what you have in mind for us.

          To mangle a great tune: “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Hu/ You ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow … .”

          Do you want some protectionist, or even autarchic, nationalist movement to come to power in a major Western nation? I sure as hell don’t.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Nowhere do i recommend that we let go of the steering wheel. Regulation is necessary – just less of it than currently exists.

            And yes, there will be one step back for every two or three or four steps forward. Creative destruction IS necessary. A good analogy is a fruit tree – periodical pruning is necessary in order to keep the tree’s structure strong, reduce disease and the risk of disease and to improve the size and quality of the fruit if not the quantity.

            The “union bashing” goes, far from people getting tired of it the move to RTW is accelerating. Indiana has joined the fold and the pressure on other non-rtw rust belt states (and ontario) is mounting. Our competition isn’t china – its indiana et al.

            And China is in flux – trying to exit the communist world and enter the first world. Give it time. They have come a huge distance in the past 40 years and the chinese are far freer and wealthier as a result. Milton Freidman argued that individual freedom is useless without economic freedom. China has become far freer economically and hopefully in time this will bring more and more personal freedom.

        • Just Call Me Rick says:

          Don’t distract with your idealogical pet-peeves and side shows. Conservatism anathetically opposes- justice, fair-mindedness, dignity, and a little self determination. These are concepts that I don’t expect you’re capable of hearing.

    • Lawrence Stuart says:

      ‘Progressive’ has become more of a tagline than a coherent ideological, or even policy, position. Which is a shame, and something we progressives should strive to address. Progress (and conservatives by and large are believers in this too) to me signifies a a movement toward the ability of all individuals to maximize their potentials in the ways they see most fit.

      Many conservatives wouldn’t emphasize, or perhaps just ignore, the ‘all,’ and thus wouldn’t recognize the need, in a society as wealthy as ours, for a redistribution of wealth to achieve that end. Progressives need, I think, to emphasize the truth that we advance toward the goal of self actualization together, as a nation, and perhaps even as a species, or we don’t advance, in a sustainable and therefore meaningful way, at all. In other words, we have to re-emphasize and strongly articulate policies that affirm the link between the health of the social whole, and the prospects of the individual.

      Modern conservatism (and some forms of libertarianism) have shifted the focus of political narrative so far in favour of the individual that they have, quite literally, in the case of libertarians, lost sight of the whole in terms of economic policies. This is their greatest weakness. Our strength is to play up a more balanced approach.

      OTOH, in conservative ideologies, the idea of the whole is often sneaked in the back door via (often virulent) nationalism. Fukuyama’s essay was, I think, right to point out that it is on this point that progressives have failed to successfully, if not articulate, then perhaps to promulgate and implement, an alternative narrative.

      Internationalism (particularly of the UN variety) has been a bit of a bust. Multiculturalism, while it has worked in this country, has not taken root in Europe, nor, really, in the US.

    • Curt says:

      See Warren
      No one has yet defined progressive in a few simple words. I think many people call themselves progressive but can’t define the word.

  9. Gord Tulk says:

    Got tipped to this great quote from Thomas Sowell which should be kept in mind for those on the left looking for a way out of the policy wilderness:

    “Brilliance–even genius–is no guarantee that consequential factors have not been left out or misconceived.   Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all–the ability to combine intellect,  knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding…Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of high intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.”

    Beware the intellect of academia…(Obama is their posterchild).


    • Michael Radan says:

      “Beware the intellect of academia”

      Always go with the gut, never trust experts or statistics. ;)

      • Gord Tulk says:

        actually read Sowell’s quote – intellect without judgement is foolishness. There is plenty of intellect in academia but very little sound judgement.

        I am with the late, great William F Buckley when he stated:

        “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

        • Philippe says:

          I agree. Policy should come from the Tim Horton’s crowd, written on napkins.

          • Bill says:

            Philippe, why put down the Tim Horton’s crowd? These people are my type of people, hard workers that built Canada.
            Your sounding like the old guard snobby liberal. This snobby lib attitude needs to go.

          • Jason King says:

            Now Bill
            You’re categorizing Phillippe, and being snotty about it yourself.

            That attempt to categorize others as something while revealing yourself to be the same needs to go.

          • Bill says:

            Nice try Jason, I’m not the one commenting on “the Tim Horton’s crowd”.
            I’m far from being a snobby elitist liberal. I’ve come from nothing and worked my butt
            off to get what I have today. I’ve been in the trenches. Have you?

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Good to see you back, Gord Tulk. Missed you on detailed explanation of how the robo-calls fit into conservatism, or non-progressive non-muddled, rightness to the world.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        let’s see what the Police and the courts determine re: the ‘robocalls” issue. As you may ahve noticed their is already some legal actions being taken re: libel.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Electoral fraud is wrong whichever side engages in it. It crosses ideological lines. And it can never be entirely eradicated.

        Very harsh penalties should be part of the election rules – i have equated it with treason on this site and others.

        But I also favour less limits on political expression – no outlawing of third party actions or limits on fundraising from individuals – oftentimes the rules that are broken shouldn’t have been rules in the first place (robocalls would not fall into this group).

    • scot says:

      You’re becoming a tiresome concern troll Gord. Don’t bother quoting pajamas media, it’s a joke.

    • Brad Young says:

      I am still waiting for GordTulk.com. You get lots of free exposure here, try your own site. Build it and they will come, I suppose.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        I’m not sure that personal blogs like this proto-version are the mid to long term venue for ideas that they are now. They are far too labour intensive to operate and they also diffuse any commenters energies – having to contribute more or less the same ideas in several different places.

        Facebook – with its all in one format – kids pics mixed in with political dialogue or even more mature topics doesn’t strike me as the finalformat either. It’s close, but it’s not There yet. Until then I’ll simply use warrens site and a few others to post my ideas on – as long as they will have me.

  10. fred says:

    Beware the pseudo-intelligence of neo-con ideologues.

    • Lawrence Stuart says:

      Or even better: Beware the foolishness of those who, because of their lack of formal training, assume themselves to be wise.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Or those who Because of their formal training Assume themselves to be wise. Certainly this is more common mistake than the one you outline.

        • Lawrence Stuart says:

          Most eggheads know they know something, but also know they are not wise. The smartest people I know are acutely aware of their own ignorance.

          Wisdom, as Fukuyama would tell you, arrives only with the coming of the dusk.

          If you are interested, I’d suggest the Leo Strauss/Alexandre Kojeve correspondence, found as an appendix to Strauss’ On Tyranny. Or anything (especially Hermeneutics as Politics) by Stanley Rosen.

          • pomojen says:

            I hear you loud and clear Lawrence, In my profession, wise people say things like “I wonder about that.” and “Let’s consult with someone else who has experience” or “what does the literature say” and finally…… “The longer I do this, the less I am sure of and the more I realise I do not know.”

            Smart people are everywhere. Wise people are rare and critically important to our society, Without them we are not sufficiently grounded, principled or even visionary. There is so much more to wisdom than sheer cognitive prowess and intellectual gymnastics. Wise people know what they don’t know. They are humble, they have wide, expansive perspectives. They admit error, confusion and ignorance. They embrace the grey and contradictory. The most dangerous people – often with no conscious intent to be dangerous – are the ones who think they have it all figured out and prefer dichotomous, closed thinking. They know not what they do not know. They believe everything is knowable via their preferred schemas and inflexible ideologies. They believe they have a monopoly on “the truth”. And they exist everywhere on the political spectrum.

  11. james Smith says:

    Reasonable people have been convinced of the BIG LIE of so-called Libertarianism is a valid & mainstream.
    It is not.
    Libertarianism is a deception, a fancy word for GREED. Reasonable people from all political views need to wake-up these merchants of GREED. I believe the first to identify then challenge & outline an alternative will be successful.

  12. patrick deberg says:


    I too notice you are very quiet on these deceptive phone calls. You seem to think a systematic and calculated descent into election subversion is nothing to comment about. As a group that has maligned us for years on hating the troops and other canards I ask what I have asked before but directly seek your reply Gord. How can you send troops to die for democracy in a foreign country and then show utter contempt for democracy in the country they swore to protect and die for? I believe a by-election must be held in every riding that can be proven to have been compromised. Do you feel that this is the only way to restore this vital principle troops have died for quite recently? If you do not please tell me you suggestion to correct this gross miscarrage of Justice. Please do not hold court with talking points Gord. I have found you to be intelligent if not misguided but this is a different horse to saddle. If you respond with utter stupidity you will be called out forever as such. Please respond, I for one want to hear your answer.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      see my comments above. I did discuss it at length on another of warren’s posts – i told of all i know about it and provided context there. thus there is little more to say until the investigation(S) take their course.

  13. Chris P says:

    One of the reasons we’ve failed to capitalize is that we collectively are lacking a forum and platform for our great thinkers to collaborate and work together. The left is dis-organized on so many levels: fundraising, think tanks, knowledge transfer, party unity etc.

    The world has gone global so why hasn’t the Liberal ideal done the same? I was encouraged that Democratic Strategists from the US were at the last Liberal convention to hold a workshop but this was informal and is only a minor form of collaboration. We need to get better organized locally, nationally and globally.

  14. Chris P says:

    I might also add as I’ve said before paraphrasing Bill Maher Liberals (i.e. the left) are horrible marketers. The right can talk Americans into war and talk them out of health care. We have lost the ‘bumper sticker’ war. We need to get the right message, communicate that message in the right way to the right audiences and fine-tune our rhetoric a little bit better.

  15. Chris P says:

    We need this in Canada and every other industrialized and emerging country joined together creating a intellectual global powerhouse: http://www.americanprogress.org/

    The left has gotten lazy and complacent in funding centre with which people can create new ideas and communicate those ideas.

  16. Lawrence Stuart says:

    @Gord Tulk “Nowhere do i recommend that we let go of the steering wheel. Regulation is necessary – just less of it than currently exists.”

    So just more of the same, what that got us to this point?

    You don’t have to sell me on the benefits of open trade. I’m a big believer. Much of the wealth creation that has happened in China and elsewhere has flowed out of those countries, largely into the developed West.

    It is our failure to distribute that swag in a sensible (from the point of view of the health of the social whole) form that is the failure. I.e., our laissez faire policies have led us to the concentration of wealth and the decline of the middle class ( see the GINI index, for example

    It’s all about balance, Gord. The belief in deregulation and supply side voodoo have slid the balance to an unsustainable focus on individual prosperity at the expense of the whole.

    It’s high time to re-adjust.

    • Conservative Socialist says:

      Call me an economic nationalist. If China can rig it’s currency and economy to leverage it’s slave labor in order to starve our industries–then I say that we reciprocate with with the same trade barriers that they erect against other countries in order to give themselves an edge.

      I’ve no problem with more open trade with countries that strive for equitable labor and environmental laws.

      I believe in regulation, but good regulation. Reagan’s anti-government message got votes because it was counter-intuitive to the dogma of the time and there were excesses being done by the government. That being said, the pendulum does need to come back.

      Grover Norquist’s maniacal anti-tax pledge is destructive. He should heed his leader’s aphorism about tax loopholes:


      The Gipper practically sounds like a progressive. Or more accurately, like a conservative socialist :)

  17. Gord Tulk says:

    By using the term “sensible” you imply that we should somehow in a top-down manner control the initial creation of wealth.

    During the beginning of a boom and the end of a depression the quantitative gap between rich and poor is the greatest (qualitatively the gap has steadily narrowed since ww2). This is because the first windfalls of the rush of new wealth created comes to those who staked the capital and at then end of a depression/recession the middle and lower classes wealth – usually largely locked-up in more conservative investments like housing and pension-eligible stocks typically are the last to come out of the bear market. Alternatively the rich typically take the biggest hit at the beginning of a bear market and the gap in wealth is narrowest at the end of a bull market.

    Thus, at what looks to be the early beginnings of a bull market – maybe – the euro crisis and a faltering china economy may mean this is yet another false bottom – the gap will grow more before it narrows again.

    A much bigger concern for the middle class is the failure of the entitlement programs – healthcare and pensions – both private and public – all left-wong pipedreams either willfully or accidentally underfunded from their inception. These entitlements were in part an attempt to close the gap between rich and poor but in the end they are doing enormous damage to the futures of those who were intended to be the biggest beneficiaries (a chronic scenario for so many policies on the left) and even more harm to their children’s future prospects – innocents in every sense of the word.

Leave a Reply